send_audio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it sends an E2EE audio message immediately, but does not mention any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The behavioral transparency is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a send tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to use params, and applicable conversation types. It could mention return value or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity between filePath and audioBase64, and explains that durationMs sets the recipient player length. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('sends'), the resource ('E2EE audio message'), and the target ('LINE conversation'). It also notes it uses the same pipeline as send_file, which helps distinguish it from other send tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Provide exactly one of filePath or audioBase64' and mentions optional durationMs. It specifies applicability to 1:1/group/room and that one send per call is allowed. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or send_file.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.